I'm getting bogged down in paperwork concerning T3, but before my next endo appointment, I'm need to establish clearly that NHS doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs that are not listed in the NHS formulary. For example, could they choose to prescribe Sandoz liothyronine? I believe that a post was written maybe 7 or 8 months ago by someone who gets this in Edinburgh.

Now that I know that it's not up to the CCG to decide what a doctor can or cannot prescribe, I'm going to have another push to get T3 on the NHS. It would be helpful if there is an official document that explains what doctors can do (without bowing to their local CCG).

So far both my endo and my GP have simply said that they are not allowed to do this, even though I explained about the Edinburgh example, and I gave them written instructions about how to do it. I'm starting to loose the will to live - and have the biggest pile of research papers so far to take to my endo, but nothing seems to help!!!

Thanks for the link. I previously got all the instructions from Lintably so that I could tell my endo and GP how to do it, but they still just said they couldn't do it, except on a private prescription

I'm wondering if there is guidance for NHS doctors that tells them they can prescribe things like Sandoz liothyronine that are not on the dormulary list.

Yes, that is helpful. Thank you!!! It seems that there are multiple reasons why they can actually prescribe an affordable brand of T3. I'd better print out the guidance for prescribing on a named patient basis ......

One of the more dispiriting realisations is that the UK authorities that dole out guidelines and instructions not to treat are completely impervious to anything other than the "rules" that have been written down. Never mind that the actuality completely rubbishes those "rules", there they will stay and be obeyed until someone decides to change (without of course admitting any mistakes having been made). I'll just quote a paragraph from a "political" rather than scientific paper we are trying to get published in the UK:

It appears that what we are witnessing constitutes an unprecedented historic change in the diagnostics and treatment of thyroid disease, driven by over-reliance on a single laboratory parameter TSH and supported by persuasive guidelines (). This has resulted in a mass experiment in disease definition and a massive swing of the pendulum from a fear of drug-induced thyrotoxicosis to the new actuality of unresolved hypothyroidism. All of this has occurred in a relatively short period of time without any epidemiological monitoring of the situation. Evidence has become ephemeral and many recommendations lag behind the changing demographic patterns addressing issues that are no longer of high priority as the pendulum has already moved in the opposite direction. In a rapidly changing medical environment, guidelines have emerged as a novel though often-promoted driver of unprecedented influence and change. Treatment choices no longer rest primarily on the personal interaction between patient and doctor but have become a mass commodity, based on the increasing use of guidelines not as advisory but obligatory for result interpretation and subsequent treatment. Contrary to all proclaimed efforts towards a more personalised medicine, this has become a regulated consumer mass market as with many other situations. However, with the increased level of patient awareness of the reasons for adverse outcomes, diagnostic faculties must act more cautiously and responsibly to avoid more frequent legal liabilities for their recommendations in the future.

Wonderfully accurate ~ best of luck with the publication! The 'increased level of patient awareness', for me, has been thanks to this wonderful forum and it's members, and posts like this! Thank you! x